Liberal Forum

I often call my side out for doing wrong. Bailouts are but one example. When Bush introduced his TARP crap, I was front and center critisizing it, and him, and all the republicans who supported it. Partisan, I ain't.That's a bit of a stretch. I never claimed to be non-partisan, so I don't see why you are trying to hold me to that standard.I too, have criticized my own side, especially when they've broken the law.Many right wingers here, defend and sometimes even applaud the law breakers on their side.God, guns, patriotism, and the America dream. The democrats oppose all three.Actually that's four things. How can you possibly say that you're not partisan in one breath, and then make a ridiculous statement like that in another. It doesn't even warrant a reply.THAT'S WHY the middle class supports republicans over democrats.That depends on what you mean by 'middle class' and which geographical area you're talking about.Remember what George W Bush said?“This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” Edited by MistyBlue, 15 March 2011 - 04:49 PM.

Remember what George W Bush said?This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.Wow, I never realized half the country was "elite."Even more, now that your party got crushed last election.And just wait until 2012.

I strongly criticized Bush's allowing of overspending, his education bill and his drug benefit, among others.When the Iraq War was going terribly, I admitted that it might have turned out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.I opined that before the last election, Congressional Repubs were to a large degree empty suits and hacks.Wow! That's a lot of criticism, Glory Hole! Should be really easy to find a link, huh?Wow, I never realized half the country was "elite."We don't actually count every person who casts a vote in the general as a member of the BASE, moron.

Wow! That's a lot of criticism, Glory Hole! Should be really easy to find a link, huh?The day you're no longer psychotic, I'll chase links for you.Wow, I never realized half the country was "elite."We don't actually count every person who casts a vote in the general as a member of the BASE, moron.Here's a clue for you, moonbat, the "elite" compromises at best 3, 4, 5% of the country and many of the rich vote for Dems, so it's no one's base.

Remember what George W Bush said?“This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.”Wow, I never realized half the country was "elite."We don't actually count every person who casts a vote in the general as a member of the BASE, moron.Here's a clue for you, moonbat, the "elite" compromises at best 3, 4, 5% of the country and many of the rich vote for Dems, so it's no one's base.And there's old Glory Hole, at it again - contradicting himself from post to post.He also claims to have been extremely outspoken against Bush's policies, and against the repubs in general.Anybody remember that? He refuses to provide any documentation - because there isn't any.

And there's old Glory Hole, at it again - contradicting himself from post to post.He also claims to have been extremely outspoken against Bush's policies, and against the repubs in general.Anybody remember that? He refuses to provide any documentation - because there isn't any.I doubt I claimed to have been "extremely" critical, but I have many times criticized the Bush policies that I opposed.Sorry if you were sleeping.Say, how's that dead political philosophy, Socialism doing? Still dead?

The day you're no longer psychoticOH THE IRONY!!!

Say, how's that dead political philosophy, Socialism doing? Still dead?Last I checked, the BushBama bailouts were proceeding apace. Why, did you hear something different?

RichClem, on 15 March 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:I strongly criticized Bush's allowing of overspending, his education bill and his drug benefit, among others.When the Iraq War was going terribly, I admitted that it might have turned out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.I opined that before the last election, Congressional Repubs were to a large degree empty suits and hacks.Wow! That's a lot of criticism, Glory Hole! Should be really easy to find a link, huh?What a bunch of ****. Especially that second one.

Say, how's that dead political philosophy, Socialism doing? Still dead?Last I checked, the BushBama bailouts were proceeding apace. Why, did you hear something different?What, putting Bush's name near it brings it back to life?Polly's bloody nailed to her perch!I strongly criticized Bush's allowing of overspending, his education bill and his drug benefit, among others.When the Iraq War was going terribly, I admitted that it might have turned out to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.I opined that before the last election, Congressional Repubs were to a large degree empty suits and hacks.What a bunch of bad word. Especially that second one. You don't read my posts, so how would you know?You can't tell the truth to save your little moonbat life.

Seriously Puss? Don't you get it yet? I'm just not that in to you.Go find someone else to discredit.This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway? Why Clem Discredits MeWhy Clem Derails My Threads

And the stalking continues.Glory Hole Clem's credibility is at an all time low. His ability to respond to ANYTHING that contradicts him - including his own effluvium - has never been more apparent. Friendless, helpless, hopeless, and clueless, Glory Hole limps around the froum pasting the same old tired **** in every thread misty starts. I often wonder who is the bigger whore - david r, or Glory Hole's mom.

Seriously Puss? Don't you get it yet? I'm just not that in to you.Go find someone else to discredit.Yeah, you adulate guys who like to rough women up, like rapist Bill Clinton.Why Clem Discredits MeBecause you're a shameless lying hack.And the stalking continues.Glory Hole Clem's credibility is at an all time low. His ability to respond to ANYTHING that contradicts him - including his own effluvium - has never been more apparent. Friendless, helpless, hopeless, and clueless, Glory Hole limps around the froum pasting the same old tired [excrement] in every thread misty starts. I often wonder who is the bigger whore - david r, or Glory Hole's mom.This is about all you're good at, you brainless little twit. Obscenities and ugly sexual jokes about others' mothers. Wow, wouldn't your parents be proud of you!You're utterly lost on almost any serious topic.Socialism, snicker.

Texas Bill Would Outlaw Discrimination Against CreationistsUnlike many other states, Texas does not ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status. But don't be alarmed; the Lone Star State is working on that whole civil liberties thing. Last week, Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler introduced HB 2454, a bill that would establish new workplace protections for proponents of intelligent design. Here's the key part:An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.And you thought Berkeley was crazy. On the upside, maybe the University of Texas will be able to help a few of the folks who are falling through Texas' fraying social saftey net. Out of a job? Come up with an elaborate theory about how a flying spaghetti monster created the universe. A tenured professorship awaits.Seriously? Is this a big problem in Texas? Discrimination against Creationists?Related articles:Creationist Says Oil's From GodWhile most scientists agree that oil is abiogenic, or formed from biomass, creationist John D. Matthews (credentials unknown) has a different theory: Oil comes from God. [...]Matthews argues that God made petroleum right after he made the Earth, and that the oil moved during the great flood.Creationist Museum Tax FraudA Pensacola judge has green lighted the government seizure of Pensacola's Dinosaur Adventure Land, a creationist theme park whose owners, Kent and Jo Hovind, owe $430,400 in federal taxes. The Hovinds' excuse for not paying was that they were employed by God and thus could claim zero income and property.I guess God forgot to send them a W-2.

Seriously? Is this a big problem in Texas? Discrimination against Creationists? A $1.6 trillion deficit Obama and Dems are fighting to maintain, roughly 11% unemployment and still rising, the country risks literal systemic collapse, but little Miss Marxist is worried about some irrelevant bill in Texas?Hey look, a squirrel!As Mark Levin jokes about professional Democrats' diversions attempts.

Seriously? Is this a big problem in Texas? Discrimination against Creationists?Related articles:I guess God forgot to send them a W-2. I admire your tolerance for boredom, I have gone through 5 cups of coffee and fallen asleep 6 times already trying to get through basement boys posts.

Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics?On Wednesday, The Blaze (Glenn Beck's website) posted a lengthy report looking at the ethics of undercover journalism. The comments on the post show a lively debate and wide-ranging views on what is considered ethical and acceptable in pursuit of a scoop.Plenty of readers felt the new NPR expos justified any ethical misgivings involved in producing it. Others felt that those seeking truths should hold to higher standards.When undercover video like the NPR story first surfaces, we often look to see if there is raw video of the material used to produce the report as a basis for evaluating the accuracy of the representations made.And we decided to do that in this case.The Blazes Pam Key, who produces most of our original videos, is experienced in reviewing hours and hours of raw audio/video to find key sections that can then be used in proper context. Her review of the NPR expos identifies a number of areas to examine.Do these areas reveal problematic editing choices? Are assertions made in the video misleading? Are the tactics used by the video producers unethical?Clearly the NPR executives, particularly Ron Schiller, show poor and, at times, despicable judgment. Do any of the revelations from the raw video ameliorate that? Do their wrongdoing justify any wrongdoing by the video producers?These are sometimes difficult matters to consider, especially for those who are pleased with the outcomes produced by the release of video reports like this; however, the ethical implications can be significant. And as we say around The Blaze watercoolerthe truth has no agenda. Perspective and context are essential elements in bringing truth to the forefront. To exclude or alter them can obscure truths rather than reveal them.Well allow you to watch sections of the edited video that has been widely distributedand then to compare those sections with the raw video that has been laudably released by the video producers.1. Muslim Brotherhood connectionsMuch of the consternation over this video centers on the question of why would NPR executives meet with a group connected to Muslim Brotherhood. Did they know? And if Muslim Brotherhood is mentioned, how are the ties characterized? Is the edited video misleading on these points?In this first section, the narration describes the players and says the NPR executives were preparing to meet with the members of Muslim Education Action Center. The narrator then describes the MEAC as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. It does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group.The raw video helps us evaluate how the NPR execs might perceive the men. The men describe themselves as board members but indicate that they are at lower levels in the organizationone of them explaining that he is relatively new to the boardthe other saying he works in mostly an observation basis. You will see that in this clip.Further, we compare the edited video with the raw video on the important section of how the actors describe the role/connection of the Muslim Brotherhood to their efforts. The edited video includes a reference to some of the original founders of MEAC being members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Is this the only reference and basis for the NPR execs to consider MEAC to have a Muslim Brotherhood connection? The raw video also includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived.2. Does Ron Schiller react to Sharia mission statement with amusement?The narrator notes that the MEAC website includes this phrase: We must combat intolerance to spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.Sharia is defined as the sacred law of Islam. But the interpretation of that definition has many variations across many Islamic traditions. That alone would not be a firm clue for the NPR executives of the groups beliefs.Of greater concern, though, is how the video is edited at this juncture.So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the acceptance of Sharia, the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, Really? Thats what they said? The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.3. How does Schiller describe Republicans?Schillers negative comments about Republicans and conservatives have gotten a great deal of attention.He clearly says some offensive things, while being very direct that he is giving his own opinion and not that of NPR. Still a wildly stupid move!But you may be surprised to learn, that in the raw video, Schiller also speaks positively about the GOP. He expresses pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism.4. The seriously racist Tea PartyNPR exec Ron Schiller does describe Tea Party members as xenophobicseriously racist people.This is one of the reasons why he no longer has a job!But the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.At the end, he signals his agreement. The larger context does not excuse his comments, or his judgment in sharing the account, but would a full context edit have been more fair? 5. Are liberals more educated than conservatives?You may also have seen a section of the video where Schiller describes liberals as more educated than conservatives. But the raw video shows a section where Schiller is hesitant to criticize the education of conservatives and the other executive, Betsy Liley, is outspoken in her defense of the intellects of Fox News viewers.Would it have been fair to include the broader range of the executives statements? The impression of the original video, that the execs were only hostile toward Republicans and conservatives, is incorrect.6. Does NPR need federal funding?Lets look now at one of the other sections most featured in news reports about the original video the comments about federal funding for NPR.Schiller says that NPR, in the long run, would be better off without federal funding and that most of the stations would survive a loss of such funding. The implication is that Schiller does not believe federal funding for NPR is important. In the raw video, however, Schiller explains the risk to local stations in more detail and why NPR is doing everything we can to advocate for federal funding.Conclusion:Anyone looking at the edited version of the Project Veritas video would be concerned about the conduct and views expressed by the NPR representatives. But should we also be concerned about the deceptive nature of some of the videos representations? Some will say no the end justifies any means, even if unethical. Others may be bothered by these tactics and view similar projects with a greater degree of skepticism.In our posting yesterday on the ethics of undercover journalism, we found a range of views. One interesting view is held by Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. Barnes believes it is always wrong for a journalist to lie: Its dishonest for anyone in journalism to pretend to be someone theyre not.But Barnes also believes this applies only to journalists. This rule doesnt apply to folks outside the profession, he told The Blaze. Barnes views the OKeefe production as a political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.Barnes may not realize that OKeefe describes his work as investigative journalism, and thus by Barnes definition unethical.And that is only on the issue of going undercover. But even if you are of the opinion, as I am, that undercover reporting is acceptable and ethical in very defined situations, it is another thing to approve of editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.Watch The Videos Here

Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics?This shameless liar is worried about "questionable editing and tactics?"The guy hasn't denied what he said, duuuh!Words do not suffice.Speaking of lies, here's this.The Republicans have such a dark pessimistic view of America. It's obvious that they hate this country.Yeah, sure, any American who wants to abide by the Constitution and Founding Principles, who worries about Obama's $1.6 trillion deficit, who opposes Socialism, hate the country.Did Repubs sit in a church for two years whose pastor ranted things like,"Goddam Amerika!!!!!" then make that racist, Communist/ Marxist moonbat their spiritual advisers?

Apparently you haven't seen me hammmering on DL. Ya know I advocate free markets, freedom and liberty. Rightwingers (and leftwingers) give lip service to free markets, freedom and liberty.Well call it a Biden-ism. It's like a Bush-ism.Hammering on a crazy right-winger is no evidence you're not a right-winger.I agree with Misty - Biden tells the truth and drives cons crazy.

Hammering on a crazy right-winger is no evidence you're not a right-winger.I agree with Misty - Biden tells the truth and drives cons crazy.Then let's see where I stand on the issues. Fire away.